Hacker News Reader

Comment by fleitz | Hacker News Reader

When you feel loved is it not the neurons in your own brain generating that feeling? That was my point.

You may also want to consider the evolutionary pressure to love certain people in your family.

Do you think it's mere coincidence that massive amounts of oxytocin are necessarily for lactation, giving birth, released after birth, released after orgasm, and that this drug also just happens to create loving emotional bonds?

Seems that evolution is also manipulating our romances and the loves of our lives. On the other hand it's probably good for society that we're chemically manipulated in this fashion. My point is not that 99% of these feelings aren't "real" my point is more of a skeptical nature in that it becomes impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling.

View on HN

> "impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling."

I don't see the need to make the distinction at all. So what if consciousness is just a bunch of electrical impulses, or that love is a giant dose of oxytocin - I'm not sure what would lead you think that these things are not "real" simply because they have some evolutionary/chemical basis.

I can have a delicious lunch today - but does the food actually taste good? Or is it adulterated by mental conditioning? Maybe I only like broccoli because of childhood mental conditioning. Or maybe it brings back a fond memory. Or perhaps it only tastes good because of the presence of certain chemicals?

... Does it matter?

Yes, it matters - both in food and in relationships. With modern chemistry unhealthy food can taste as good as what evolution has shaped us to detect as good food. With a psychopath a fake relation can feel as good as a true one.

In both cases you will know the difference, just not immediately.

That would justify vigilance and caution, not outright dismissal of all emotion as socially-conditioned, non-real constructs.

Certainly it would not justify something as cynical as this:

> "Aren't most people just failed social actors who are rather poor at picking the signs in which to display their emotional communication?"

which was the part that really rubbed me the wrong way.

>> "Aren't most people just failed social actors who are rather poor at picking the signs in which to display their emotional communication?" > which was the part that really rubbed me the wrong way.

But, aren't they?

Not actor in the sense of a script/a lie, but in the sense of trying, ultimately imperfectly, to convey how we feel to the world around us?

How often do you think you nail the perfect smile, the perfect handshake, the perfect snuggle, to demonstrate happiness, but not too much, familiarity and strength without being overbearing, and tenderness without clinging?

Combine that with the imperfect feedback you get from others and we have really have no idea about the finer details of anyone but yourself.

Not just that you can't detect lies but that we have no way of telling if our perceptions of red are the same, let alone a hug or a complex thought.

You're right and have a point - the question is, do our imperfect expressions of emotion somehow rob them of their reality, intent, or genuineness?

It seems to me (perhaps this is a misreading of the post) would have us dismiss emotional expression as inherently untrustworthy, or somehow unreal. I disagree vehemently.

Sure, our expressions, and the way they're perceived, is colored by brain chemistry, social conditioning, and a myriad of other factors... but I maintain that it simply makes them more complex, not less real.

"...but in the sense of trying, ultimately imperfectly..."

There is a broad range between trying imperfectly and being a failed social actor.

I think you are conflating two things here.

@potatolicious is comparing the experience of a tasty meal to the experience of love/happiness/whatever, and saying that it doesn't matter what the underlying cause of it is, it's the experience that matters. I think it's a reasonable point.

You're saying that the experience could be 'fake' because it's based on a fake stimulus. Just in the same way that a loving experience is could be based on a fake interaction by someone else (say a psychopath).

But from /your/ perspective, is there a difference in the experience between the fake and the real? If the inputs are the same, the experience is the same, whether they are triggered by chemicals or some kind of higher-level mental state that we can't adequately explain via chemistry or biology.

The OP seems to be denigrating the human experience based on the chemical 'fakery'/self-deception involved. But that's a different kind of fake--that's your body 'faking' it. [And I totally disagree with that by the way; I agree completely with @potatolicious].

If you are unable to distinguish from these "feelings", you could potentially be unable to tell if you are in love (persons your soul mate/personalities go really well/want to spend the rest of your life with that person) or if you just have good sex, which can allow a bad relationship to linger for years.

I think he's saying that if you're expressing such skepticism and cynicism about the subject because of lack of scientific objectivity, you're probably incapable of experiencing it or giving it. And I think that is what he thinks you're missing out on, the experience of really giving and receiving it.

If you want to call it a fairy tale and say the emperor has no clothes... the logical conclusion would have society be unable to have real examples of trusting love, and it would subsequently break down into a series of make-believe emotional transactions.

The societal and circumstantial evidence does not seem to corroborate your premises, even though there may be no scientifically tested objective data.

He can correct me if I'm wrong.

If everything is just matter, there isn't even a category of "real." Everything is just as real as everything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com